Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

From: HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 09:41:33 EST

  • Next message: David Schwartz: "RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    > No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed.
    > If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that.
    >
    > jms

    multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on purpose
    in the intarrwebbz.. meaning: all of them.. (you can never tell which ones
    will get the idea to depeer next, so you have to be multihomed to all of
    them or this can still happen)

    -this- time its sprint and cogent, next time it could be level3 and
    sprint, etc, now, do you want to multihome on all of them, just to avoid
    problems when they purposely and actively break the internet, or would you
    rather just tell them not to do it..

    what should happen here is their customers just enforcing a contract
    change that they contractually have to make every possible effort to peer with
    anyone or the customers leave...

    you can buy shares in both companies, so its also possible to cause a
    riot at their shareholders meeting if this is a major problem to your
    connectivity, and tell them never to do that again.

    >
    >
    > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"
    >


  • Next message: David Schwartz: "RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD